9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o vide Order-in-Appeal No. 385 dated 26.04.2015, dismissed the same thereby rejecting their refund claim. The order was assailed before the Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi. This Triubnal vide Final Order No. 53162/2016 dated 22.03.2016, allowed the appeal of the Appellant, thereby granting the refund along with the consequential interest. 2.1 Consequently, the Appellant filed a letter with the Assistant Commissioner for sanctioning of refund claim in pursuance to the order of the said order of Tribunal. The Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 632 dated 30.11.2016, rejected the refund claim and ordered the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved there from the Appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 40 dated 23.01.2018 allowed the appeal of the Appellant holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable for amount of interest. 2.2 In consequence to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellant filed letter dated 02.02.2018 with the Department for interest on the refund they were eligible for, along with interest of Rs. 2,34,755/- (later increased) from the date of filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge suffer from gross misinterpretation of these decisions. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of State of Gujarat Vs Unjha Pharmacy reported as 2016 (341) ELT 211 (Gujrat) wherein the decision of Gujrat Fluoro (Supra) has been followed holding that compensation for prolonged delay in sanction of interest has to be granted. 3.2 In alternative submission, it has been submitted that when principal amount is payable with interest, payment made by the department is to be first adjusted towards the interest and thereafter towards the principal amount. Thus, to the extent of short fall in refund of principal amount after first appropriating the sanctioned amount towards interest, the liability of Revenue to grant interest still stands. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of V. Kala Bharathi and Ors. Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. reported as AIR 2014 (S.C.) 1563, decision of Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Vs. Smithaben H. Patel & Ors. reported as AIR 1999 (SC) 1036 have been relied upon by the appellant. Finally, impressing upon that on the delayed sanction of refund of interest on 26.04.2018 the appellant is entitled to interest in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant. The interest was disbursed @ 6% vide order dated 06.07.2018. The appellant today has not contested the rate of interest. However, no interest on interest amount of Rs. 2,34,755/- was sanctioned. The same was denied by Commissioner (Appeals) also vide order dated 11.10.2018. 6. The appellant's claim of interest on the said disbursed amount of interest on the ground that the same was disbursed after a reasonable delay was, therefore, rejected. Hence, the only question is to be adjudicated is opined as: Whether the appellant is entitled to interest on the sanctioned amount of interest qua refund claims which could not be disbursed with three months thereof. 6.1 The relevant provision in this respect is Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944, it reads as follows : Section 11BB. Interest of delayed refunds - If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 11B to any applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, not below ten per cent and not exceeding thirty per cent per annum as is for the time being f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering the issue whether an assessee who is made to wait for refund of interest for decades be compensated for the great prejudice caused to it due to the delay in its payment after the lapse of statutory period. In the facts of that case, this Court had come to the conclusion that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in refunding certain amount which included the statutory interest and therefore, directed the Revenue to pay compensation for the same not an interest on interest." 14. The aforesaid shows that in the latter decision of the Larger Bench, it was held that the decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) cannot be read to mean that Revenue is obliged to pay interest on interest in the event of its failure to refund the interest payable within the statutory period. The Apex Court further held that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) the Court had come to the conclusion that there was inordinate delay on the part of the Government to refund certain amount, which includes statutory interest and, therefore, directed the Revenue to pay compensation for the same, but not interest on interest. 15. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear that inordinate delay for the grant of justified claim may entitle the person to get compensation against that delay the power of granting compensation is an inherent power. Present being a tribunal is not vested with any such inherent power. This Tribunal is a quasi judicial authority which is absolutely bound by the statutory provisions. No power as that of awarding compensation is available with the Tribunal as not being provided by the statute. Otherwise also it has never been the prayer of the appellant. Appellant is praying for entitlement of interest on the amount of delayed interest. Same cannot be called as the claim of compensation. 7. No doubt the decision of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (Supra) has not been overruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent decision of Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (Supra). But, perusal of that decision shows that the question to be adjudicated in that decision before the Supreme Court was whether an assessee is entitled to be compensated by the Income Tax department for the delay in paying interest on the refunded amount, admittedly, due to the assessee. The question was adjudicated in affirmative. Revenue was directed to pay compensation f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
